L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a constable in the railway Protection Force. He was placed under suspension with effect from 16-9-1998, pending enquiry under the allegations of misconduct. After holding enquiry the 2nd respondent passed order dated 13-1-1999 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two steps, from rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 3,350. 00 for a period of two years. Further the period of suspension i. e. , from 16-9-1998 to 13-1-1999 was directed to be treated as period of suspension only. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the appellate authority had confirmed the same through orders dated 23-3-1999. The petitioner challenges the order dated 13-1-1999 in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sri J. M. Naidu submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to have been held proved and at any rate treating the period of suspension as such, was contrary to the letter dated 3-12-1985 issued by the Department of Personnel and training. ( 3 ) LEARNED Standing counsel for the respondents Sri Mula Vijayabhaskar submits that the enquiry officer had recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and the same cannot be interfered at this stage, after the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had affirmed the same. He also raises an objection as to the very maintainability of the writ petition, which is filed four years after the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority. ( 4 ) THIS court is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. No procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings is pointed out. Consequently the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be interfered with. ( 5 ) SO far as the period of suspension is concerned the Department of Personnel and training, Government of India had issued letter dated 3-12-1985 dealing with the situation, where disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty are initiated against an employee, but the disciplinary authority, ultimately imposes only a minor penalty. The Department had directed that in such a situation, the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty. The Department had directed that in such a situation, the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty. The respondents have applied the said letter, to the cases relating to their employees and after invoking it, have regularized the period of suspension where minor penalty was imposed. The petitioner had placed before this court three such proceedings whereunder, similar course of action was adopted. There does not appear to be any reason as to why the same shall not be applied to the present case. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that the petitioner had approached this court almost four years after the order imposing punishment had become final. Usually, undue delay in prosecuting the remedy results in its denial. However, recently the Supreme court in hindusthan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dollidas held that the delayed approach of an employee to a court, by itself, does not defeat the remedy or right. It was observed that at the most, such an employee may be denied the benefit of back wages, if he was otherwise entitled for the remedy. ( 7 ) FOLLOWING the same the objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay is overruled. The order dated 13-1-1999 in so far as it directs the period of suspension to be treated as such, is set aside. The period during which the petitioner was placed under suspension shall be treated as on duty and the same shall be reckoned for all attendant benefits including pension and other benefits. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits in the form of back wages. ( 8 ) THIS Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.